|
Well, here's what I'm wondering. Assuming he took the money, doesn't the burden of proof fall on him to demonstrate that he didn't help throw the series? It's not impossible for him to have taken the money and still played fairly, but what's the default assumption if he took the money? That he was helping throw the games, as well.
I sympathize with him if he was actually innocent of fixing the series, but I'd also want baseball to err on the side of conservatism in such matters.
|